This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

In full application of Skitt's law, I shouldn't have called it an indicative, it is not an indicative. What I should have said is that while were is formally the “most correct” subjunctive form, was is perfectly standard usage. Also, I'm sure this has been asked hundreds of times here before.
–
GillesFeb 9 '12 at 13:03

@Gilles: LOL, I was wondering if we'd end up with an endless series of Skitt's Law examples. :-) I understand that using "was" here is common. But I wouldn't call it correct. (To give you an idea of my upbringing, my father's voice comes to me from across the years: "'Common' is exactly what it is." ;-) ) If you see a duplicate referring to the future conditional case, by all means flag it. I didn't, in a few minutes of looking, but that doesn't mean anything.
–
T.J. CrowderFeb 9 '12 at 13:07

1 Answer
1

The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language treats this were as an irrealis form of be and not the subjunctive, which is typically realized by the bare form of the verb (e.g., important that you be on time). It says the were version belongs to a formal style, but that the was version is standard.

But it is historically the subjunctive. It's just that in modern English, the subjunctive is used in two completely-looking different ways (this one and "it is necessary that he be detained"), and they think that using the same name for both would be confusing. The irrealis were is slowly losing ground to the indicative, and is considered optional by many grammarians.
–
Peter Shor Feb 9 '12 at 13:02